Of course you'd rather live in the present than in the past; you grew up in contemporary times and are accustomed to them. Everything else is foreign and thus intimidating. The fellow who grew up in the 1950s might symmetrically prefer their time to ours, again having been inculcated with the mindset of their own era; things like computers, cellphones, and the Internet which are indispensable to you may not mean quite as much to them. Such things may not be enough to cause them to overlook changes in the landscape of income inequality, career security, etc. So the mere fact that you, a native of the 2010s, prefer them to the 1950s doesn't make any strong point on its own.
How do you kow bko didn't grow up in the 50's? My parents did, and they sure as shit don't want to go back. I grew up in the 80's, before Internet and the access to knowledge it gives me, and before cell phones and the freedom of communication they give me. Guess which time period I find more to my liking.
You are right; I don't know bko was not around in the 1950s. I should clarify, however, that comparing adult life in the 2010s and adult life in the 1950s is different from comparing adult life in the 2010s and child life in the 1950s. It is possible, but unlikely, that bko was thinking about income and career stresses and managing a family and so on both in the 1950s and in the 2010s, in such a way as would allow an apples-to-apples comparison.
It's not that I want to say life in the 1950s was actually better; I just take issue with the soundness of this kind of argument to dismiss concerns about trends in income inequality, etc. My general point is something along the lines of what Matt Bruenig expounds on here: http://www.demos.org/blog/6/16/15/people-arent-better-income...
But nowadays you have much easier access to 80s music than you did in the 80s. Not to mention a lot of 80s-style music made after the 80s (like Synthwave).
